3 reasons why outfitting grunts with suppressors is a great idea (and 3 reasons why it sucks) - We Are The Mighty
Articles

3 reasons why outfitting grunts with suppressors is a great idea (and 3 reasons why it sucks)

Anyone who’s ever shot an AR or M4 with a suppressor knows how much better the experience is. Hence the saying, “Once you go suppressed, you never go back.”


Previously the exclusive domain of special operations troops, the Marine Corps is experimenting with outfitting an entire infantry battalion with suppressors to fire with their M16 and M4 rifles — and even with their light, medium and heavy machine guns, like the M2 .50cal.

“What we’ve found so far is it revolutionizes the way we fight,” a top Marine Corps official told Military.com recently. “It used to be a squad would be dispersed out over maybe 100 yards, so the squad leader couldn’t really communicate with the members at the far end because of all the noise of the weapons. Now they can actually just communicate, and be able to command and control and effectively direct those fires.”

Industry and military experts agree, saying suppressors deliver tremendous advantages to troops in battle. But there’s a reason why the technology has been primarily in the kit bag of special operations troops and highly trained snipers — they’re not always “grunt proof” and can sometimes cause more problems than they solve if used improperly, experts say.

So first, let’s look at three reasons why firearm sound suppressors awesome. Then we’ll show you three reasons why they’re a potential bigtime problem.

1. Signature mitigation

One of the main benefits to suppressor use by infantry troops, military experts say, is that the suppressor helps eliminate the flash of the powder burn from a fired round from emerging from the end of the barrel. Sound suppressors are like a vehicle muffler and use a series of baffles to progressively disperse the gas and flash from a shot.

3 reasons why outfitting grunts with suppressors is a great idea (and 3 reasons why it sucks)
The flash from a shot is a dead giveaway of a trooper’s position to the enemy — especially at night. (DoD photo)

When a trooper fires his rifle equipped with a suppressor — which can add another 4-6 inches to the end of the barrel (more on that in our “disadvantages list”) — that’s a lot of extra room for the flash to dissipate, making it hard for a bad guy to see a Marine’s position in the dark.

“This reduces or eliminates attention drawn to the shooter, making him virtually invisible,” said one Marine infantry expert. “We like to fight at night because it helps us reduce the enemy’s ability to see us or identify us as quickly — add a suppressor and it will help increase tempo.”

2. Recoil reduction

One of the things that a lot of shooters don’t realize is that a suppressor drastically reduces a firearm’s felt recoil, one industry expert said. Trapping the gasses within the suppressor negates the need for muzzle breaks or other devices to help keep the barrel level shot after shot.

3 reasons why outfitting grunts with suppressors is a great idea (and 3 reasons why it sucks)
Suppressors help with followup shots for precision shooters like this Marine firing an M27 rifle. (US Marine Corps photo)

As anyone who’s had to fire a shot in anger would know, accuracy is the key to survival, and suppressors help a lot in this area.

“Suppressors reduce firing recoil significantly … reducing the speed and quantity of the gas expelled and reducing the total momentum of the matter leaving the barrel, transferring to the gun as recoil,” the Marine infantry expert told WATM. “Suppressors also increase the speed of the bullet to the target, and this will cause an increase in accuracy and the shooter’s ability to track the target longer — and if needed calmly fire another carefully aimed shot.”

3. Sound suppression

Of course, as the name implies, suppressors are primarily designed to reduce the report of a firearm. They are not “silencers” like the Hollywood image would imply. A suppressor typically reduces the sound of a rifle from 160 dB to 135 dB — just enough to make it hearing safe, but by no means deadly quiet.

3 reasons why outfitting grunts with suppressors is a great idea (and 3 reasons why it sucks)
(US Marine Corps photo)

But that sound reduction is enough to provide a major advantage in fighting indoors and helping small unit leaders communicate better on the battlefield. Particularly when used with a machine gun, the suppressor can expand the area a unit can communicate and operate, industry and military experts say.

“Especially in [close quarters battle] suppressors are particularly useful in enclosed spaces where the sound, flash and pressure effects of a weapon being fired are amplified,” the infantry expert said. “Such effects may disorient the shooter, affecting situational awareness, concentration and accuracy. This could also reduce the noise in the battlefield thus aiding leaders in maintaining command and control.”

And the affect on a trooper’s hearing isn’t anything to shake a stick at either, industry experts say.

“The VA spends about $10 million per year on helping veterans who’re suffering from hearing loss,” the silencer industry source said. “That’s a big concern for service members who’re being exposed to gunfire throughout their career.”

While it’s clear most agree suppressors deliver major advantages to the war fighter, it’s not all ninja moves and .5 MOA shots every time.

1. Heat

Look, it’s physics folks. That gas and flash from a shot has to go somewhere.

Trapped in the suppressor, the hot gas and flash of a magazine dump, for example, can heat the accessory up to as much as 500 degrees. That’s enough to melt handguards and deliver severe burns if a trooper absentmindedly handles one.

That means if grunts are using suppressors as a matter of course, they have to add yet another element to look out for when they’re manipulating their weapons.

2. Length and Weight

Adding a “can” to the end of a rifle adds extra weight and length to the firearm. That changes how the trooper operates, particularly in close quarters battle scenarios.

The whole point of equipping infantry Marines with 14.5-inch barreled M4s is the make them more maneuverable. Adding another 6 inches to their rifle puts them right back in M16 A4 land, the Marine infantry expert said.

The added weight to the end of the barrel also affects accuracy and manipulation, industry sources say. A suppressor can make a rifle “front heavy,” changing the way a shooter has to mount the rifle and balance it for an accurate shot.

3. Maintenance

Great care has to be taken in mounting a suppressor to a rifle, the industry expert told us. Marines are probably using suppressors that attach to the rifle using a quick-attach mount so that a trooper can take the suppressor off quickly if needed (the other type of attachment is to just thread it directly to the barrel).

If this attachment isn’t done right and the suppressor is just a tiny bit off from the line of the barrel, it can result in the fired bullet impacting the baffles inside the suppressor, causing it to rupture. This is known as a “baffle strike,” and while it doesn’t usually cause severe injury, it can take a gun out of a fight, the industry source said.

Additionally, on direct (gas) impingement guns like the M4 (but not like the piston-driven M27), the suppressor can force a lot of gas back into the rifle breach.

“A suppressor scenario is going to result in a much filthier gun,” the industry source said. “That could cause more malfunctions if it’s not cleaned immediately.”

Modern suppressors are awesome and make shooting a firearm more controllable, accurate and safe. Most believe outfitting service members with this technology increases their effectiveness on the battlefield. But its important to remember they do come with some drawbacks that take training and practice to avoid.

Articles

This is how you pack helicopters into a plane

Developed by Lockheed Martin and most famously used for search and research by the U.S. Coast Guard, the Sikorsky S-92 is one of the most versatile and dependable helicopters on the market and can fly through the toughest storms to complete its mission.


With its multi-mission capability, the S-92 is needed all over the world. But transporting the 15,000-pound, four-bladed, twin-engine aircraft can be extremely tricky and very dangerous.

Related: These 4 aircraft were the ancestors of the powerful SR-71 Blackbird

Squeezing the durable aircraft into the narrow cargo bay of a transport plane would prove catastrophic if not handled correctly, as the helicopter’s wingspan stretches to an impressive 56 ft. So it takes a group of well-trained mechanics to properly dismantle the helo’s rotors.

Each pin that connects the rotors must be carefully loosened by hand and the instructions followed to a “T.”

As each rotor is ready for release, the team members must slide out each blade with surgical precision keeping the structures intact.

After the rotors are wrapped and stored for shipping, the greatest task is yet to be accomplished — loading the Sikorsky S-92 into the plane’s cargo bay.

Also Read: Former SEAL and founder of Blackhawk! has launched a new … Blackhawk!

Check out the Smithsonian Channel video below for the detailed look that goes into transporting this awesome beast.

(Smithsonian Channel, Youtube)
Articles

Today in military history: Battle of Midway ends

On June 7, 1942, the Battle of Midway ended, turning the tide of the war for the Americans against the Japanese in the Pacific.

It had been six months since the attack on Pearl Harbor and during that time, the Japanese Navy had been nearly invincible. The United States, however, had become an increasing threat, and Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto decided to strike a blow against the U.S. Navy before the States could become a serious rival. 

He set an intricate trap near the strategic island of Midway. Unfortunately for the Japanese, U.S. codebreakers uncovered the plot and responded in force. On June 3, the Japanese fleet was spotted right where the Americans expected them to be. What followed was four days of fighting one of the most decisive battles in the Pacific. 

After crippling the Japanese fleet by destroying four of its carriers, the Americans were able to finally defeat Yamamoto and level the playing field in the Pacific theater, but the naval counteroffensive would continue until Japan’s surrender three years later. 

The Battle of Midway is arguably one of the greatest moments in the history of the United States Navy. American heroism was put on display during that battle by personnel both in the air and on the sea, but only one man received the Medal of Honor during the multiple-day campaign: Marine Captain Richard E. Fleming. Fleming was assigned to Marine Scout Bomber Squadron 241. Also known as the “Sons of Satan,” the squadron was equipped with 16 Douglas SBD-2 Dauntless and 11 Vought SB2U-3 Vindicator dive bombers.

On June 4, the squadron took part in attacks on Japanese carriers, losing a number of planes. During the initial attacks, Fleming dove dangerously low in order to get a better angle of attack on the ships. The next day, Fleming led an attack on a pair of Japanese cruisers that were damaged in a collision caused by the submarine USS Tambor. During this attack, too, Fleming dove, closing in on the enemy ship.

Fleming was shot down while pressing his attack on the heavy cruiser HIJMS Mikuma. His bravery, and the bravery of those around him, helped turn the tide for the Allies at Midway.

Featured Image: USS Yorktown (CV-5) is hit on the port side, amidships, by a Japanese Type 91 aerial torpedo during the mid-afternoon attack by planes from the carrier Hiryu, in the Battle of Midway, on June, 4, 1942. Yorktown is heeling to port and is seen at a different aspect than in other views taken by USS Pensacola (CA-24), indicating that this is the second of the two torpedo hits she received. Note very heavy anti-aircraft fire. (U.S. National Archives image)

MIGHTY TRENDING

Norway releases video from inside sunken elite warship

A little over a month after the Helge Ingstad sank after colliding with a tanker in a Norwegian fjord, the Norwegian military has released footage from the submerged frigate.

The warship was rammed by a Malta-flagged tanker in the early morning hours of Nov. 8, 2018, in the port of Sture, north of Bergen, which is Norway’s second-largest city.


The frigate displaces 5,290 tons, and the tanker displaces over 62,500 tons when empty. But when the tanker is fully loaded, as it was at the time of the collision, that jumps to about 113,000 tons, more than an aircraft carrier. The collision tore a large hole in the starboard side of the frigate’s hull, which caused other compartments to flood.

Footage released by the Norwegian military, which you can see below, shows the damage sustained by the frigate.

Damage to the Helge Ingstad

www.youtube.com

The 0 million, 442-foot-long warship was returning from NATO’s massive, multinational Trident Juncture military exercise when it collided with the 820-foot-long tanker.

A Norwegian rescue official said at the time of the collision that the frigate was “taking in more water than they can pump out. There is no control over the leak and the stern is heavily in the sea.”

According to a preliminary report released at the end of November 2018, control of the frigate’s rudder and propulsion systems was lost, which caused the ship to drift toward the shore, where it ran aground about 10 minutes after the collision.

3 reasons why outfitting grunts with suppressors is a great idea (and 3 reasons why it sucks)

Recovery operations for the Helge Ingstad on Nov. 28, 2018.

(Norwegian armed forces photo)

Running aground prevented it from sinking in the fjord, but later, a wire used to stabilize the sunken vessel snapped, allowing it to sink farther. Only the frigate’s top masts remain above the surface.

In December 2018, Norwegian explosive-ordnance-disposal divers returned to the ship to remove the missile launchers from its foredeck.

Below, you can see footage of them detaching the launchers and floating them to the surface.

Missile removal Helge Ingstad

www.youtube.com

“All diving assignments we undertake require detailed planning and thorough preparation. We must be able to solve the assignments we are given, while providing as low a risk as possible,” diving unit leader Bengt Berdal said, according to The Maritime Executive.

“Our biggest concern [during this mission] is any increased movement of the vessel.”

With the missiles off the ship, all its weapons have been removed. Recovery crews are preparing to raise the ship, putting chains under the hull to lift it on a semisubmersible barge that will take it to Haakonsvern naval base.

The frigate will not be raised until after Christmas, according to The Maritime Executive.

3 reasons why outfitting grunts with suppressors is a great idea (and 3 reasons why it sucks)

Chains being readied aboard the heavy-lift vessel Rambiz to lift the sunken Norwegian frigate Helge Ingstad on Dec. 7, 2018.

(Norwegian armed forces photo by Jakob Østheim)

The oil tanker was not seriously damaged in the incident and didn’t leak any of its cargo. Only eight of the 137 crew aboard the Helge Ingstad were injured, but the multimillion-dollar ship was one of Norway’s five capital Nansen-class frigates and was one of Norway’s most advanced warships. (It also leaked diesel and helicopter fuel, but that was contained and recovered.)

The preliminary report found that the warnings to the frigate, which was headed into the port, went unheeded until too late, allowing the outbound tanker to run into it.

According to the report, the frigate’s automatic identification system was turned off, hindering its recognition by other ships in the area, and there was confusion on its bridge because of a change in watch — both of which contributed to the accident.

The preliminary report also raised questions about other ships in the class and the Spanish shipbuilder that constructed it.

The review board “found safety critical issues relating to the vessel’s watertight compartments. This must be assumed to also apply to the other four Nansen-class frigates,” the report said.

“It cannot be excluded that the same applies to vessels of a similar design delivered by Navantia, or that the design concept continues to be used for similar vessel models.”

This article originally appeared on Business Insider. Follow @BusinessInsider on Twitter.

popular

8 things you never knew about the Purple Heart Medal

August 7 is Purple Heart Day. A day when we are encouraged to pause and reflect on those wounded in battle and those who have given their lives in service to our country. The Purple Heart has had a long and interesting history, filled with starts, stops and infinite assessments.


Through it all, the Purple Heart has remained a steadfast symbol of courage and bravery. As members of the military family, there’s no doubt we’ve all heard of the Purple Heart, we’ve listened to the stories behind them and a few have maybe even seen one up close. But how much do you really know about the Purple Heart? Here are 8 interesting facts to get you up to speed.

The oldest military award in history

The Purple Heart was created by George Washington on August 7, 1782, by the Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army, General George Washington. At its inception, it was known as the Badge of Military Merit, and at the close of the Revolutionary war, the medal was only given to three Revolutionary soldiers. No medals were given again until 1932.

Why is it purple?

The Purple Heart as we know it today was redesigned by General Douglas MacArthur in 1932, in honor of the bicentennial of George Washington’s birthday. The medal is emblazoned with a bust of George Washington and displays his coat of arms and the words “for military merit” are inscribed on the back. It is believed that the color purple was chosen because it represents courage and bravery.

Qualifications have changed over the years (and continue to evolve)

When the Purple Heart was re-established in 1932, the award was limited to those serving in the Army or the Army Air Corps. In 1942, President Roosevelt formally designated the award for those who were wounded or killed in battle. He also expanded the eligibility to all branches of the military and allowed the Purple Heart to be awarded posthumously. In 1996, eligibility was further amended to allow Prisoners of War to receive the award.

First service member in modern history to receive the Purple Heart

While Revolutionary War soldiers William Brown, Elijah Churchill, and Daniel Bissell, Jr. were the first to receive the Badge of Military Merit, General Douglas MacArthur was the first modern-day recipient of the Purple Heart for his service during WWII.

1.8M Purple Hearts have been awarded

While there have been gaps and inconsistencies in record keeping since the Purple Heart was re-established in 1932, it is estimated that approximately 1.8M Purple Hearts have been awarded.

First woman to receive the Purple Heart

Army Lt. Annie G. Fox was the first woman to ever receive a Purple Heart for her heroism during the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. Serving as the chief nurse at Hickam Field, Hawaii, Fox’s calm demeanor and exemplary leadership guided her staff through the events of that day, no doubt saving countless lives.

The Military Order of the Purple Heart 

Purple Heart recipients can join The Military Order of the Purple Heart. Formed in 1932, the MOPH is the only veteran’s service organization composed of only combat veterans and, of course, Purple Heart recipients.

First (and only) president to receive The Purple Heart

While more than half of our nation’s presidents have served in the military, only one was ever awarded a Purple Heart. President John F. Kennedy served in the Navy during WWII, and in 1943, he sustained a back injury when a Japanese destroyer collided with his torpedo boat in the Solomon Islands. Although he was injured, the former President swam three miles to shore with an injured crew member in tow. On July 12, 1944, John F. Kennedy received both a Purple Heart and a Navy and Marine Corps Medal (the Navy’s highest honor) for his actions that day. When he was asked about his heroism, JFK famously and humbly replied, “It was involuntary. They sunk my boat.”

Articles

US suggests NATO should train Iraqi army

Washington wants NATO to assume responsibility for Iraqi troops once the Islamic State forces are defeated, a top military commander said on Wednesday.


A top US military commander has floated the idea of the Washington-led NATO military coalition to assume some responsibility for training troops in Iraq after Islamic State group militants are defeated there.

The 28-member Atlantic alliance “might be uniquely posturing to provide a training mission for an enduring period of time” in Iraq, General Joe Dunford told reporters during his flight back to the US from Brussels, where he attended a planning meeting ahead of next week’s NATO summit.

3 reasons why outfitting grunts with suppressors is a great idea (and 3 reasons why it sucks)
Iraqi soldiers train to fight ISIS in April 2010. (Photo: US Army Sgt. Deja Borden)

“You might see NATO making a contribution to logistics, acquisitions, institutional capacity building, leadership schools, academies – those kind of things,” Dunford, who is Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, said.

The issue is at the top of the agenda for next week’s summit, with US President Donald Trump pushing the allies to take on a greater role in combatting terrorism.

After months of brutal, street-by-street combat, IS has lost control of most of its stronghold of Mosul in Iraq, while the jihadi force is now largely isolated in Raqqa, over the border in Syria.

A change in who leads the training mission would likely also mean revamping the nature of the effort, Dunford said.

“We are not talking about NATO doing what we are doing now for combat advising in places like Mosul or Raqqa,” the general said.

“I don’t think we are at the point now where we can envision or discuss NATO taking over” all missions of the anti- IS coalition in Iraq, he added.

NATO’s top brass said on Wednesday they believed the alliance should consider joining the anti- Islamic State group coalition put together by Washington to fight IS in Syria and Iraq.

General Petr Pavel, head of NATO’s military committee, told reporters after chiefs of defense staff met in Brussels that it was time to look at this option.

“NATO members are all in the anti- IS coalition. The discussion now is – is NATO to become a member of that coalition,” he said.

Articles

These are the 5 Russian generals already fighting the new Cold War

3 reasons why outfitting grunts with suppressors is a great idea (and 3 reasons why it sucks)
Photo: Wikimedia Commons


The Ukrainian Security Service (SBU) has prepared a dossier laying out evidence for what it calls “Russian aggression against Ukraine.”

The report alleges there are some 9,000 Russian troops deployed in Ukraine, forming 15 battalion tactical groups. The force includes about 200 tanks, more than 500 armored fighting vehicles, and some 150 artillery systems, according to the dossier.

The SBU also identifies by name five Russian generals who it says are playing leading roles in commanding and coordinating the military forces of the separatists in eastern Ukraine.

Speaking to Bloomberg, New York University professor and specialist in Russian security services Mark Galeotti said that by “embedding their senior officers,” the Russians are solidifying control over the separatist portions of Ukraine.

“Somewhere in Moscow they have made the decision this will be a long-term frozen conflict,” Galeotti told Bloomberg.

Russia has consistently denied any military involvement in the conflict there.

RFE/RL takes a closer look at the six officers who have been implicated:

Major General Oleg Tsekov

Tsekov graduated from a military institute in Chelyabinsk in 1988. He then served in various parts of the Soviet Union and Mongolia.

He graduated from the Academy of the General Staff in 2011. The same year, he was appointed commander of the 200th motorized special-forces brigade of the Northern Fleet. In September 2014, the volunteer information service InformNapalm published evidence that the unit had been mobilized from Murmansk Oblast to Rostov Oblast, together with evidence that service personnel from the 200th had been identified in Ukraine.

Tsekov was promoted to major general (equivalent of a U.S. two-star general) on February 21, 2015.

The latest SBU dossier charges that Tsekov commands the so-called 2nd brigade of the separatist forces near Donetsk.

Major General Valery Solodchuk

Born in Astrakhan, Solodchuk graduated from the paratroops institute in Ryazan in 1992. In 2012, he was named commander of the 7th guards air-assault division based in Novorossiisk. A media reference in 2014 identified Solodchuk as deputy commander of the 5th Army in the Far East.

Digital-forensic investigators have drawn attention to a soldier of the 7th guards air-assault division named Stanislav Ramensky. He posted on social media several photographs that seem to have been taken in Crimea in March 2014, when Russia annexed the peninsula from Ukraine. He also published a photograph of the medal and certificate he was given on April 14, 2014, “for the return of Crimea,” which was signed by Solodchuk.

In an interview with Rossiiskaya Gazeta in March, Solodchuk was asked if the 7th guards air-assault division is a designated rapid-reaction unit within the Russian military. He answered that there are no such units and that the entire military is in a state of constant combat readiness. Asked if that meant that his unit is prepared to be ordered into battle at any moment, Solodchuk answered, “Exactly.”

The SBU dossier charges that Solodchuk is the commander of so-called 1st Army Corps of Novorossia in the Donetsk area.

Major General Sergei Kuzovlev

Sergei Kuzovlev was born in 1967 and graduated from the paratroops institute in Ryazan in 1990. He also studied at the Academy of the General Staff. He was promoted to major general in February 2014. Since 2014, he has been chief of staff of the 58th Army based in Vladikavkaz.

In January, the Ukrainian SBU released an audio recording that it alleged showed Kuzovlev organizing the military forces of the self-proclaimed “Luhansk People’s Republic” in eastern Ukraine. The SBU says Kuzovlev goes by the pseudonyms “Tambov” and “Ignatov.”

Major General Aleksei Zavizion

Aleskei Zavizion was born in Narva, Estonia, in 1965 and graduated from a military institute in Chelyabinsk in 1986. He served in the Far East, in Chechnya, and as commander of Russian forces in Tajikistan.

In 2009, he began studies at the Academy of the General Staff.

In March, Ukraine’s SBU claimed Zavizion, using the nom de guerre Alagir, directed the shelling of Kramatorsk and Mariupol. Referring to Zavizion, SBU official Markiian Lubkivskyi wrote on Facebook that “a citizen of the Russian Federation…with the call sign Alagir is currently in Donetsk within the rotational assignment of running the Operational Headquarters since January 2015, coordinating military operations with the participation of representatives of illegal armed formations.”

“Alagir is the person in charge of the deployment of artillery, mobile rocket systems, and heavy equipment,” Lubkivskyi continued. “Major bloody attacks on Ukrainian cities, particularly on Kramatorsk and Mariupol, were carried out under his direct command and coordination.”

Lubkivskyi also wrote that Zavizion was scheduled to be replaced by Russian Major General Andrei Gurulyov.

Major General Roman Shadrin

Roman Shadrin was born in Rostov Oblast in 1967 and graduated from a military institute in Kazan. He served in the Soviet contingent in East Germany after graduating in 1988. In 1995, he was awarded the Hero of Russia medal for his service during the first war in Chechnya. After service in Armenia and the North Caucasus, Shadrin was named deputy commander of Interior Ministry troops in the Urals region. In 2008, he served during the conflict with Georgia in the breakaway Georgian region of South Ossetia, after which he was promoted to major general.

In September 2013, he was elected to the Yekaterinburg City Duma from the ruling United Russia Party.

The SBU dossier says Shadrin is the so-called minister of state security for the self-proclaimed “Luhansk Peoples Republic” (LNR) in eastern Ukraine. According to a media report on July 3, Shadrin denies the allegation, saying he has only traveled to Ukraine’s Donbas region “with a humanitarian mission.”

The Yekaterinburg-based Novy Den news agency reported the same day that Shadrin has “repeatedly traveled to eastern Ukraine with humanitarian missions.” It also noted that Shadrin resigned as chairman of the city legislature’s security committee in January and quoted an unidentified source in the Yekaterinburg Duma as saying Shadrin “holds one of the top positions in the security service of the LNR.”

The same source said it is not known when Shadrin will return to his duties in Yekaterinburg, but there have been no efforts to strip him of his mandate.

Also from Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty:

This article originally appeared at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty Copyright 2015.

Copyright (c) 2015. RFE/RL, Inc. Reprinted with the permission of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, 1201 Connecticut Ave NW, Ste 400, Washington DC 20036.

Articles

17 reasons why the M1 Abrams tank is still king of the battlefield

3 reasons why outfitting grunts with suppressors is a great idea (and 3 reasons why it sucks)
US Air Force photo by Tech Sgt John Houghton


Since first coming into service in 1980, the M1 Abrams tank has become a staple of US ground forces. The 67-ton behemoth has since made a name for itself as an incredibly tough, powerful tool that has successfully transitioned from a Cold War-era blunt instrument to a tactical modern weapon.

Also read: The US Army is testing a faster and more lethal variant of the Abrams tank

In the slides below, find out how the M1 Abrams became, and remains, the king of the battlefield.

Here is one of the first M1 Abrams in 1979. The Abrams entered service in 1980, but didn’t see heavy combat until Desert Storm in 1991.

3 reasons why outfitting grunts with suppressors is a great idea (and 3 reasons why it sucks)
DoD photo by Eddie McCrossan

The Abrams was the first tank to incorporate British-developed Chobham composite armor, which includes ceramics and is incredibly dense.

3 reasons why outfitting grunts with suppressors is a great idea (and 3 reasons why it sucks)
Ultimate Factories/National Geographic Television And Film

Despite the British-designed armor, the Abrams tanks were made in Ohio and Michigan.

3 reasons why outfitting grunts with suppressors is a great idea (and 3 reasons why it sucks)
Ultimate Factories/National Geographic Television And Film

Source: GlobalSecurity.org

The Abrams is highly mobile, with a top speed of more than 40 mph and an impressive zero-turn radius.

via GIPHY

Source: Federation of American Scientists

Also, in special conditions like loose sand, dirt, or packed snow, the Abrams can actually drift.

via GIPHY

The M1 Abrams sports a 120 mm smooth-bore cannon capable of firing a variety of rounds.

3 reasons why outfitting grunts with suppressors is a great idea (and 3 reasons why it sucks)
US Army photo by Maj. Adam Weece

Like with any armored unit, their success depends partly on the hardware and partly on the crew. Here, a loader expertly queues up a round capable of melting through an enemy tank’s armor.

via GIPHY

Source: YouTube

In addition to the main cannon, the Abrams sports a M2H Browning .50-caliber machine gun, a staple of the US military since World War II. In some cases, the guns can be remotely fired.

3 reasons why outfitting grunts with suppressors is a great idea (and 3 reasons why it sucks)
US Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Cody Haas

The M1 Abrams is just plain tough. Watch it roll over a car bomb without even closing the hatch. This would tear a lesser tank to shreds.

via GIPHY

Source: YouTube

The US as well as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Australia use the Abrams as their main battle tank.

3 reasons why outfitting grunts with suppressors is a great idea (and 3 reasons why it sucks)
US Army photo by Sgt. Marcus Fichtl, 2nd ABCT PAO, 4th Inf. Div.

When the Abrams finally saw combat in 1991, it impressed operators with it’s effective rounds and virtual invulnerability to Iraqi tank fire. No Abrams was destroyed by Iraqi tank fire during the Persian Gulf War.

3 reasons why outfitting grunts with suppressors is a great idea (and 3 reasons why it sucks)
PHC D. W. HOLMES II, US Navy

Source: US General Accounting Office

In fact, the only Abrams lost during the Persian Gulf War were destroyed by friendly fire, sometimes on purpose so they couldn’t be reclaimed by Iraqi forces.

3 reasons why outfitting grunts with suppressors is a great idea (and 3 reasons why it sucks)
US Department of Defense

The Abrams benefited from having superior range and night-vision abilities compared to their Soviet-made counterparts.

3 reasons why outfitting grunts with suppressors is a great idea (and 3 reasons why it sucks)
Ultimate Factories/National Geographic Television And Film

During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Abrams became involved in urban warfare while clearing cities. Urban warfare is the worst situation for tanks, as their range is limited by buildings and they can be attacked from above, where their armor is weakest.

3 reasons why outfitting grunts with suppressors is a great idea (and 3 reasons why it sucks)
US Army, Staff Sgt. Aaron Allmon II

Source: USA Today

3 reasons why outfitting grunts with suppressors is a great idea (and 3 reasons why it sucks)
US Military

Source: USA Today

In his book “Heavy Metal: A Tank Company’s Battle to Baghdad” Maj. Jason Conroy reports a lopsided victory where an Abrams unit destroyed seven Soviet-made T-72 tanks at point-blank range with no losses on the US side.

3 reasons why outfitting grunts with suppressors is a great idea (and 3 reasons why it sucks)
M1 Abrams tanks conduct a live fire range day. | U.S. Army photo

Today, the Abrams remains the US’s main battle tank, one of the most successful tanks of all time, and the king of the battlefield.

3 reasons why outfitting grunts with suppressors is a great idea (and 3 reasons why it sucks)
US Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Justin T. Updegraff

MIGHTY CULTURE

10 Ways to Show Your Gratitude During Military Appreciation Month

May is Military Appreciation Month. Each year the President makes a proclamation reminding the nation of the importance of the Armed Forces, and declaring May as Military Appreciation Month.

Here are 10 ways you can show your gratitude to military members during Military Appreciation Month:

Wear your pride

Pull out those patriotic and military themed shirts, or buy a new one and wear them with pride. This shows those members of the Armed Forces that you support them and appreciate all that they do.

Donate to a military charity

If you want to give of yourself or financially, consider donating to a military charity. It can be difficult to know which charities are worthy of your gifts, as there are so many out there. The key to this is to do your research before you decide. A few of the top rated charities are: The Gary Sinise Foundation, Homes for Our Troops and Fisher House Foundation.

3 reasons why outfitting grunts with suppressors is a great idea (and 3 reasons why it sucks)

Fly the flag

As Americans, this is always the number one way we show our patriotic pride. During the month of May fly those colors (properly, of course) and show your pride and appreciation for those who protect our country every day.

Buy a military member a drink, coffee or meal

If you are out, why not buy a military member a drink, a coffee or even a meal? Acts of kindness are always appreciated by the men and women of the Armed Forces.

Take to social media

This Military Appreciation Month, fill up social media with notes and posts of how much our military is appreciated. Paint your gratitude across Facebook, Twitter and other social platforms.

Send a note or card

There are thousands of men and women deployed across the world from all branches of the military. Send them a note or a card telling them how much you appreciate their service and sacrifice. Better yet, get the kids involved and have them make cards to send to the troops.

Send a care package

If you want to take things a step farther, care packages are always appreciated by the troops, especially those deployed. Websites like Operation Gratitude give information on how to best get care packages to the members of the Armed Forces.

3 reasons why outfitting grunts with suppressors is a great idea (and 3 reasons why it sucks)

Pay respects at a military cemetery or memorial

Part of the month of May is Memorial Day. This is one of the reasons this month was chosen for Military Appreciation Month. Take the time to visit a cemetery or memorial and pay your respects to those that gave the ultimate sacrifice for their country.

Support military-owned businesses

There are many military members, military spouses and veterans who own their own business. Find some in your neighborhood and make a point to support them by stopping by, purchasing their goods, and recommending them to your friends and families.

Say thank you

Any of these options are a wonderful way to show appreciation to members of the military. However, oftentimes a simple ‘Thank You’ is more than enough. If you see a member of the military out and about, take the time to give them a smile, a handshake, and a thank you. Those two words mean more than you can know.

May is Military Appreciation Month. However, these men and women serve and sacrifice every day of the year. Yes, this month in particular show your gratitude towards them. But, remember them the rest of the year as well. They make the choice to serve and to sacrifice for you, give them your thanks every day.

MIGHTY TACTICAL

This is why the A-10 (and other combat planes) aren’t flown by the Army

No one is debating the effectiveness of the AH-64 Apache. It’s one of the deadliest combat aircraft ever fielded. In Afghanistan, its mere presence in the sky is enough to deter enemy fighters from even thinking about taking a shot on troops on the ground. However, there’s something to be said for close air support provided by fixed-wing aircraft. Of course, everyone is familiar with the legendary A-10 Thunderbolt II and its ability to deliver huge volumes of precision fire on ground targets.

3 reasons why outfitting grunts with suppressors is a great idea (and 3 reasons why it sucks)
The Air Force won’t get rid of the A-10 because they don’t want the Army to get it (U.S. Air Force)

In WWII, the Army Air Corps tore into German supply convoys with the P-47 Thunderbolt at low altitude. In Korea and Vietnam, the Navy and Marine Corps utilized the A-1/AD-4 Skyraider with great efficiency to support ground troops. Today, the Marine Corps still integrates its infantry with close air support through the Marine Air-Ground Task Force. By combining these two crucial components, the MAGTF is able to organically conduct combat operations with increased efficiency. Marines on the ground are supported by Marines in the air and everyone speaks the same language and knows what the other needs to do their job. So, why doesn’t the Army do this?

After the creation of the Air Force in 1947, the military needed to clearly define its purpose amongst the established branches. In 1948, Secretary of Defense James V. Forrestal held a meeting with the service chiefs in Key West, Florida to do just that. Due to the location of the meeting, the policy paper that resulted is commonly referred to as the Key West Agreement. Broadly, the agreement gave the Air Force control of everything in the sky. The Air Force’s functions included air superiority, strategic air warfare, close combat and logistical air support, aerial intelligence gathering, strategic airlift, and even maritime operations like antisubmarine warfare and aerial mine-laying. However, the agreement did provide for the Navy to retain its combat air arm “to conduct air operations as necessary for the accomplishment of objectives in a naval campaign.” The Army, on the other hand, made out like a bad divorce. Army aviation assets were reduced to solely reconnaissance and medical evacuation purposes.

The Key West Agreement was built upon with the Pace-Finletter Memorandum of Understanding of 1952. Secretary of the Army Frank Pace and Secretary of the Air Force Thomas K. Finletter came together to expand the Army’s allowed aviation capabilities. In an effort to restrict the Army’s use of combat aircraft, the Key West Agreement limited the weight of Army rotary-wing aircraft. With the Pace-Finletter MOU, this weight restriction was removed, paving the way for combat helicopters like the UH-1 Huey gunship, AH-1 Cobra, and AH-64 Apache. However, it did place an arbitrary weight restriction of 5,000 pounds on Army fixed-wing aircraft. Although this restriction was later modified, it set the precedent to make the Army reliant on the Air Force for close air support and airlift.

3 reasons why outfitting grunts with suppressors is a great idea (and 3 reasons why it sucks)
The Army CV-7 Buffalo (U.S. Army)

If the previous agreements weren’t enough, the Johnson-McConnell Agreement of 1966 was one more blow to Army fixed-wing aviation. In Vietnam, mountainous terrain made resupply by airlift difficult with the Air Force’s primary cargo planes like the C-123 Provider which required 1,750 feet of runway to take off. To address this problem, the Army employed the CV-2 Caribou and planned to acquire the CV-7 Buffalo airplanes. Both planes could perform short takeoffs and landings while carrying more cargo than the Army and Air Force’s helicopters could lift in and out. This didn’t sit well with the Air Force and private negotiations were held between Army Chief of Staff General Harold K. Johnson and Air Force Chief of Staff General John P. McConnell. The resulting agreement forced the Army to relinquish control of the CV-2 and CV-7 to the Air Force. However, the Air Force did relinquish its sweeping control over rotary-wing aircraft. This expanded the Army’s ability to field helicopters and resulted in the diverse fleet that the Army Aviation Branch fields today.

While the Army doesn’t fly CAS airplanes like the A-10 and is still technically restricted from acquiring new CAS airplanes like the A-29 Super Tucano, it’s worth noting that the Army does have some fixed-wing aircraft. The Army flies nealy 200 turboprop R/C-12 Hurons for light transport and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance missions. Something that will further surprise most people is that the Army does fly jet aircraft for VIP transport. The UC-35 is based on a Cessna business jet and the C-37 and C-20H are based on Gulfstreams.

3 reasons why outfitting grunts with suppressors is a great idea (and 3 reasons why it sucks)
The C-12 is the one airplane that active duty Army aviators can select out of flight school (U.S. Army)

Though these 20th century agreements prevent the Army from flying combat airplanes, advancements in rotary-wing technology have led to high-speed helicopters like the S-97 Raider and large tiltrotor aircraft like the V-280 Valor. Aircraft like these will carry Army Aviation into a new age of aircraft and allow soldiers in the sky to retain the advantage on the battlefield.

Articles

22 photos that prove the US military has the best office views

3 reasons why outfitting grunts with suppressors is a great idea (and 3 reasons why it sucks)
U.S. Navy photo by Ensign Joseph Pfaff


Mountain vistas, Arctic panoramas, and rolling steppe are some of the locations that members of the US military can claim as their “offices.”

As members of the sister-service branches continue to work around the world, troops have seen places that the vast majority of Americans may never experience. What’s more, troops can easily claim that their offices are among the most exotic in the world.

Below, we have picked some of our favorite US military photos showing the amazing views military members have from their rotating offices.

A sailor guides an MH-60S Sea Hawk helicopter assigned to the “Dragon Whales” of Sea Combat Squadron (HSC) 28 during a night vertical replenishment aboard the guided-missile cruiser USS Philippine Sea (CG 58).

3 reasons why outfitting grunts with suppressors is a great idea (and 3 reasons why it sucks)
U.S. Navy photo

Lance Cpl. Chance Seckenger with 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit, rides in a Combat Rubber Raiding Craft during launch and recovery drills from the well deck of the USS Green Bay, at sea, July 9, 2015.

3 reasons why outfitting grunts with suppressors is a great idea (and 3 reasons why it sucks)
U.S. Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Brian Bekkala

3 reasons why outfitting grunts with suppressors is a great idea (and 3 reasons why it sucks)
U.S. Navy Photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Bradley J. Gee

Two F-15E Strike Eagles wait to receive fuel from a KC-135R Stratotanker January 23, 2015, on their way to Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, in support of Red Flag 15-1.

3 reasons why outfitting grunts with suppressors is a great idea (and 3 reasons why it sucks)
USAF/Airman 1st Class Aaron J. Jenne

An F-16 Fighting Falcon from the 80th Fighter Squadron at Kunsan Air Base, South Korea, takes off at Jungwon AB, South Korea, during Buddy Wing 15-6 on July 8, 2015. Buddy Wing exercises are conducted multiple times throughout the year to sharpen interoperability between US and South Korean forces.

3 reasons why outfitting grunts with suppressors is a great idea (and 3 reasons why it sucks)
U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Nick Wilson

The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Fitzgerald (DDG 62) transits the South China Sea.

3 reasons why outfitting grunts with suppressors is a great idea (and 3 reasons why it sucks)
U.S. Navy

A Marine engages targets from a UH-1Y Venom with Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 161, 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit, during Composite Training Unit Exercise above San Clemente Island, California, March 20, 2015.

3 reasons why outfitting grunts with suppressors is a great idea (and 3 reasons why it sucks)
U.S. Marine Corps

Members of the Mongolian Armed Forces, along with their US Marine and Alaska Army National Guard instructors, hike down a valley during the survival-training course portion of Khaan Quest 2014 at Five Hills Training Area, Mongolia, June 26, 2014.

3 reasons why outfitting grunts with suppressors is a great idea (and 3 reasons why it sucks)
U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Edward Eagerton

Sailors and Marines aboard the amphibious assault ship USS Iwo Jima (LHD 7) participate in a swim call. Iwo Jima is the flagship for the Amphibious Ready Group and, with the embarked 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit (24th MEU), provides a versatile, sea-based expeditionary force that can be tailored to a variety of missions in the U.S. 5th Fleet area of operations.

3 reasons why outfitting grunts with suppressors is a great idea (and 3 reasons why it sucks)
U.S. Navy photo

A C-130 Hercules flies over Izu Peninsula, Japan, Oct. 14, 2015. Performing regular in-flight operations gives all related personnel real-world experience to stay prepared for contingency situations and regular operations.

3 reasons why outfitting grunts with suppressors is a great idea (and 3 reasons why it sucks)
U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Elizabeth Baker

Gunnery Sgt. Eddie Myers, parachute safety officer assigned to Detachment 4th Force Reconnaissance Company, prepares to jump out of a UH-1Y Venom helicopter during airborne insertion training at the flight line aboard Marine Corps Air Station Kaneohe Bay June 10th, 2015.

3 reasons why outfitting grunts with suppressors is a great idea (and 3 reasons why it sucks)
U.S. Marine Corps

Aircraft land aboard the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise (CVN 65) during nighttime flight operations in the Arabian Sea.

3 reasons why outfitting grunts with suppressors is a great idea (and 3 reasons why it sucks)
U.S. Navy

Lance Cpl. Zachery Johnson prepares to engage targets from a UH-1Y Venom during Amphibious Squadron/Marine Expeditionary Unit Integration Training above San Clemente Island February 28, 2015.

3 reasons why outfitting grunts with suppressors is a great idea (and 3 reasons why it sucks)
U.S. Marine Corps

3 reasons why outfitting grunts with suppressors is a great idea (and 3 reasons why it sucks)
U.S. Navy

A Marine attached to Weapons Company, 1st Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment – “The Lava Dogs” fires a Javelin at a simulated enemy tank during Lava Viper aboard Pohakuloa Training Area, Hawaii, May 29, 2015.

3 reasons why outfitting grunts with suppressors is a great idea (and 3 reasons why it sucks)
U.S. Marine Corps

US Marines with Alpha Battery, 1st Battalion, 12th Marines fire the M777-A2 Howitzer down range during Integrated Training Exercise 2-15 at Blacktop Training Area aboard Camp Wilson, Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center Twentynine Palms, California, January 31st, 2015.

3 reasons why outfitting grunts with suppressors is a great idea (and 3 reasons why it sucks)
U.S. Marine Corps

A Marine with Marine Heavy Helicopter Squadron 367 sits on the ramp of a CH-53E Super Stallion helicopter after completing a portion of a joint Downed Aircraft Recovery Team exercise aboard Marine Corps Training Area Bellows, July 30, 2015.

3 reasons why outfitting grunts with suppressors is a great idea (and 3 reasons why it sucks)
U.S. Marine Corps

US Army Soldiers, assigned to 1/25 SBCT “Arctic Wolves”, US Army Alaska, transport equipment using snowshoes and ahkio sleds during an arctic mobility squad competition in the Yukon Training Area, Fort Wainwright, Alaska.

3 reasons why outfitting grunts with suppressors is a great idea (and 3 reasons why it sucks)
U.S. Army photo by 1st Lt. James Gallagher

An MH-60S Sea Hawk helicopter assigned to the Black Knights of Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron participates in a helicopter exercise off the coast of the Hawaiian Island of Kauai during Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) Exercise 2014.

3 reasons why outfitting grunts with suppressors is a great idea (and 3 reasons why it sucks)
U.S. Navy photo by Ensign Joseph Pfaff

The crew of the Los Angeles-class attack submarine USS Hampton posted a sign reading “North Pole” made by the crew after surfacing in the polar ice cap region.

3 reasons why outfitting grunts with suppressors is a great idea (and 3 reasons why it sucks)
US Navy photo by Chief Journalist Kevin Elliott

A naval air crewman assigned to Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron 9 jumps from an MH-60S Sea Hawk helicopter during simulated search and rescue operations.

3 reasons why outfitting grunts with suppressors is a great idea (and 3 reasons why it sucks)
U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Kevin J. Steinberg

The Coast Guard Cutter SPAR transiting Glacier Bay National Park Saturday, July 22, 2012, in Southeast Alaska. The SPAR is a 225-foot buoy tender stationed in Kodiak, Alaska.

3 reasons why outfitting grunts with suppressors is a great idea (and 3 reasons why it sucks)
U.S. Coast Guard photo by Seaman Justin Hergert

MIGHTY TACTICAL

Upgrades complete for the Air Force’s massive C-5 Galaxies

Lockheed Martin said in early August 2018 that the last of 52 upgraded C-5M Super Galaxy cargo planes had been delivered to the Air Force, finishing the nearly two-decade-long modernization of the service’s largest plane.

Lockheed began work on the Air Force’s Reliability and Re-engineering Program (RERP) in 2001 and turned over the first operational C-5M Super Galaxy, as the latest version is called, on Feb. 9, 2009.


In the 17 years since the RERP effort started, 49 C-5Bs, two C-5Cs, and one C-5A were upgraded, according to a Lockheed release, first cited by Air Force Times. The upgrades extend the aircraft’s service life into the 2040s, the contractor said.

3 reasons why outfitting grunts with suppressors is a great idea (and 3 reasons why it sucks)

A C-5M Super Galaxy lands at Dover Air Force Base, Delaware, April 4, 2016.

(US Air Force photo)

The program involved 70 modifications to improve the plane’s reliability, efficiency, maintainability, and availability, including changes to the airframe; environmental, pneumatic, and hydraulic systems; landing gear, and flight controls.

The main new feature is more powerful engines, upgraded from four General Electric TF-39 engines to General Electric F-138 engines. The new engines, which are also quieter, allow the C-5M to haul more cargo with less room needed for takeoff.

“With the capability inherent in the C-5M, the Super Galaxy is more efficient and more reliable, and better able to do its job of truly global strategic airlift,” Patricia Pagan, a senior program manager at Lockheed, said in the release.

All together, the RERP upgrades yield “a 22 percent increase in thrust, a shorter takeoff roll; [and] a 58 percent improvement in climb rate,” according to release, which said the modifications give the C-5M greater fuel efficiency and reduce its need for tanker support.

3 reasons why outfitting grunts with suppressors is a great idea (and 3 reasons why it sucks)

Airmen and Marines load vehicles into a C-5M Super Galaxy at Camp Bastion, Afghanistan, Oct. 6, 2014.

(US Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Jeremy Bowcock)

The C-5 stands 65 feet high with a length of 247 feet and a 223-foot wingspan. The upgraded C-5M can haul 120,000 pounds of cargo more than 5,500 miles — the distance from Dover Air Force base in Delaware to Incirlik airbase in Turkey — without refueling. Without cargo, that range jumps to more than 8,000 miles.

The plane can carry up to 36 standard pallets and 81 troops at the same time or a wide variety of gear, including tanks, helicopters, submarines, equipment, and food and emergency supplies.

The first C-5A was delivered to the Air Force in 1970. By 1989, 50 C-5Bs had joined the 76 C-5As that were already in service. Two C-5Cs, modified to carry the space shuttle’s large cargo container, were also delivered in 1989.

3 reasons why outfitting grunts with suppressors is a great idea (and 3 reasons why it sucks)

An Air Force C-5M Super Galaxy taking off.

(Lockheed Martin photo)

The modernization push

The Air Force began a C-5 modernization push in 1998, starting the RERP in 2001 with plans to deliver 52 upgraded planes by fiscal year 2018. The remainder of the C-5 fleet was to be retired by September 2017.

But the C-5 fleet has face administrative and operational issues in recent years.

Due to budget sequestration, a number of C-5s were moved to backup status in over the past few years, meaning the Air Force still had the aircraft but no personnel or funding to operate them. In early 2017, Air Force officials said they wanted to move at least eight C-5s from backup status to active status.

“I need them back because there’s real-world things that we’ve got to move, and they give me that … added assurance capability,” then-Air Mobility Commander Gen. Carlton Everhart said at the time.

3 reasons why outfitting grunts with suppressors is a great idea (and 3 reasons why it sucks)

A C-5M Super Galaxy taxis down the flight line before takeoff at Dover Air Force Base, Delaware, Aug. 17, 2015.

(US. Air Force photo by Roland Balik)

In the months since, the Air Force’s C-5s have encountered maintenance issues that required stand-downs.

In mid-July 2017, Air Mobility Command grounded the 18 C-5s — 12 primary and six backups — stationed at Dover Air Force Base after the nose landing-gear unit in one malfunctioned for the second time in 60 days. Days later, that order was extended to all of the Air Force’s 56 C-5s, which had to undergo maintenance assessments.

The issue was with the ball-screw assembly, which hindered the extension and retraction of the landing gear. The parts needed to fix the problem were no longer in production, however, but the Air Force was able to get what it needed from the “boneyard” at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, where unused or out-of-service aircraft are stored.

In early 2018, the nose landing gear again caused problems when it failed to extend all the way for an Air Force Reserve C-5M landing at Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland. The plane landed on its nose and skidded about three-quarters of the way down the runway. The cause of the accident and extent of the damage were not immediately clear, but none of the 11 crew members on board were hurt.

This article originally appeared on Business Insider. Follow @BusinessInsider on Twitter.

www.youtube.com

Articles

Military spouse helps pass legislation to benefit military retirees in Arkansas

When Brittany Boccher was approached by retired Major General Kendall Penn and the Arkansas Secretary of State Military and Veterans Liaison Kevin Steele to help get proposed legislation passed to protect the retirement pay of military retirees, Boccher jumped at the opportunity to serve her current community.


Boccher, a mother of two and the spouse of a special agent with the Air Force Office of Special Investigations, began the task by hosting the General and the Military and Veteran’s Liaison at one of the Little Rock Spouses’ Club meetings, where the men presented the proposed legislation to the local military spouses.

3 reasons why outfitting grunts with suppressors is a great idea (and 3 reasons why it sucks)
Brittany Boccher was invited to attend the signing of legislation into state law on Feb. 7, 2017. The law exempts military retiree pay from state taxes. (Photo courtesy of Brittany Boccher.)

The proposal specifically addressed the taxation of pay for military retirees. While active duty personnel in Arkansas do not pay a state tax, retired veterans’ pay is taxed.

That tax didn’t sit well with Governor Asa Hutchinson and Lieutenant Governor Tim Griffin, who have seen their state ranked at 48 in attracting and retaining working age military retirees and veterans.

“A lot of them will retire really young in their 40s, 50s, 60s. And what do they do? They have that steady income and start other businesses or they go work a new job,” Griffin said.

Hutchinson agreed, saying, “I believe it will help us to bring more military retirees here, welcome them back to Arkansas.”

Boccher committed to calling or emailing every state senate committee member directly to discuss his or her support for Hutchinson’s proposed tax initiative. Then she set out to round up military families that would benefit the most from the initiative in order to testify before the state house and senate committees.

Boccher, a business owner in Arkansas herself, told We Are the Mighty that her family reflected the target audience the state was hoping to attract with the proposed tax break.

“They were seeking a young family close to retirement to showcase that they would have a second career after the military. We are a 17 year military family, we’re young, and with two small children. We want to stay in Arkansas and we own a business in Arkansas.”

Boccher said her family “checked all the boxes” for what Steele and Penn wanted to present as the ideal family the state was trying to attract.

Penn asked Boccher to testify before the state house and senate committees.

As a result of her hard work and commitment to the legislation, Boccher and her family were invited to the bill signing ceremony earlier this month.

On February 7, Hutchinson released a statement that read, in part, “…beginning in January [Arkansas] will also exempt military retirement pay. This initiative will make Arkansas a more military friendly retirement destination and will encourage veterans to start their second careers or open a business right here in the Natural State.”

For her part, Boccher is proud of what she’s accomplished for veterans while simultaneously running an apparel company, a photography company, and a non-profit organization, the Down Syndrome Advancement Coalition.

Additionally, Boccher is the president of the Little Rock Air Force Base Spouses’ Club and the 2016 and 2017 Little Rock Air Force Base Spouse of the Year.

Boccher had this to say about her work, “The military community is resilient, adaptable, dedicated, independent, supportive, and resourceful, but most of all they can make a difference, their voice can be heard, and they can and will make change happen!”

Do Not Sell My Personal Information